These future-titans-of-civic-life-and-industry are so thug! Did you see how they pushed over those inanimate objects? Incredible skill!


On the other hand, fuck corporate culture.. We need more big-box stores like we need another fucking terrorist attack.

>> ^shagen454:

Yeah, yeah. I know what you are saying, if I have to go to an interview I dress up to meet their silly superficial first impression expectation. But, that is just another problem with this country and more specifically the corporate culture of blandness and conformity.
If I go see a show I dont judge anyone on how they look. If someone looks good... then all the better. But, I would never point out ... oh man, I am so happy that this band arent wearing skinny fit jeans. Im super happy they have khakis on because it just makes all of the difference in my mind. I dont give a fuck. If the music, film, play, novel, zine, message or whatever it is is interesting that is all that is important.
I know that sounds like something an ugly person would say, but my name is SHAGEN for a reason, haha.

>> ^Payback:
>>
>> ^Payback:


Superficial? First impressions are hugely important. You look like a slob, people will dismiss you as one before you even utter a word. It's not superficial, it's human nature. The way he has presented himself communicates his belief what he is saying is important. The Internet isn't text-based anymore. Presentation is everything.


More people like @shagen454 please!

Yeah, yeah. I know what you are saying, if I have to go to an interview I dress up to meet their silly superficial first impression expectation. But, that is just another problem with this country and more specifically the corporate culture of blandness and conformity.

If I go see a show I dont judge anyone on how they look. If someone looks good... then all the better. But, I would never point out ... oh man, I am so happy that this band arent wearing skinny fit jeans. Im super happy they have khakis on because it just makes all of the difference in my mind. I dont give a fuck. If the music, film, play, novel, zine, message or whatever it is is interesting that is all that is important.

I know that sounds like something an ugly person would say, but my name is SHAGEN for a reason, haha.



>> ^Payback:

>>
>> ^Payback:


Superficial? First impressions are hugely important. You look like a slob, people will dismiss you as one before you even utter a word. It's not superficial, it's human nature. The way he has presented himself communicates his belief what he is saying is important. The Internet isn't text-based anymore. Presentation is everything.

So ridiculous.

Also, take this incident completely out of it and look at from this standpoint. Why the hell should a bunch of executives get huge bonuses for a company's safety record in the first place? If corporate culture made any sense the people who are working dangerous jobs every day should be the ones receiving 'safety bonuses' if a company has a good year. Not a bunch of executives.

I think we need more symbols of good guys fighting corrupt corporate culture, especially in this day and age.

@campionidelmondo
The CEO is the man in charge, is he not? It's kind of the definition of the position. If you compare the best and the worst companies in an industry, it certainly seems to support the idea that corporate culture and actions, are heavily driven by the stances of the executive-in-charge. That means he -is- responsible for the actions taken by the company, no? If not, then what in the hell justifies those hyperinflated salaries?

Sadly, it's apparent that nationwide scorn has no effect on the type of person who reaches the CEO position...clearly we need bigger guns to get the point across. It's time to make it clear that stockholders are not the only people whose opinions should be counted...the rest of us are also affected by their actions and should have a fair say in setting the rules of engagement.

Sadly, our current corporate culture applauds this sort of effort. We need to put an end to any organization that attempts to create their own artificial demand as opposed to fulfilling naturally occurring consumer demand.

^ ^ Netrunner, there are some things about your example I don't understand. Why bring up an example that could turn out a hundred different ways depending on the contract in question? Do you mean whether you should have a right to make the tenants pay? How would you enforce it? Payment of common areas is up to the parties in question I guess?

Then there is the other specific example of current corporate culture, which is arguable very different from theoretical Capitalism, and succeeds largely because of political cronyism and going beyond voluntary action into coercion by government proxy (lobbying for legislative influence, bailouts, exclusive contracts etc).

I'd say that as soon as you do that, we're no longer talking about capitalism, but something akin to fascism (i.e. heavy governmental-industrial integration and protection of mutual interests by any means necessary).

And how can you be tired of the coercion argument ? It's totally central, and is one of the reasons why half of the US population keeps voting against your ideology. Shouldn't that be reason enough to understand it?

^rougy, I did say that it's not a pretty thing.
And does your description of the evils of a market correction imply that you were for the bailout?

>> ^Crake:
Netrunner: Capitalists can feel morally outraged about taxation, because no matter how little they worked for the money, taking it by coercion is more despicable still, and in addition leads to ill effects like corrupt politicians and counterproductive incentives.
Also, I may be over-analyzing here, but when you say: "...convincing them that they got something of equal value out of the transaction." i actually disagree slightly.
If i have $15 in my pocket, and the seller has a CD that i like, i make an exchange because, to me, the CD is worth MORE than $15. Otherwise I'd keep my money instead. The possibility of mutually benefiting from a transaction is something you don't often hear about from the liberal side of the debate, to put it mildly.


Eh, I'm somewhat tired of the coercion argument. Think of it this way: if I build a condominium, and sell out the individual units, do I have the right to compel the residents to pay a maintenance fee for the common areas of the condo that I'm responsible for?

You're not really over analyzing, I think we're just trying to highlight different aspects. I agree that when markets work right, both parties gain from the transaction. I would even argue that this happens with a lot of things people buy.

However, I think there's a lot of emphasis in the modern corporate culture on "creating demand" and finding "new markets", and essentially spending a lot of time and money convincing people that they need/want things they don't need, or at least try to boost their perception of the value of a product so that they can jack up the price.

For example, take brand-name OTC drugs. They're not really any different than generic substitutes, but companies spend a lot of money on marketing to convince people it's a product worthy of its price premium, when often it's not.

And just to show that it isn't just the government I have a problem with...its also the corporate culture. I do believe in the markets, but I don't believe in immoral corporations (any more than immoral individuals) or some brainwashing notion of "The American Dream". Its already enough to be Uncle Sam's 12 year, $1.4 million dollar slave, but guess what, you are probably also a slave to J.P. Morgan as well.

Here is a graph of how many years you slave to pay off nothing but the interest on the average American home ($250,000). This doesn't even include the principle - if you included that you'd have to almost double the years (yes you pay more in interest than you do the principle over a 30 year loan):
http://i48.tinypic.com/2nl4sbc.png

Adding it all up:
http://i50.tinypic.com/2zz0wpi.png

America...the land of the free. Free to be a slave for 20-30 years of your life...

>> ^gtjwkq:
The Fed is a secretive entity with govt given powers but no govt oversight, there is a bill in Congress to audit the Federal Reserve for exactly that reason: Even the govt doesn't know what the Fed does!

Here's an area where we have some common ground. I want the Fed audited and a bit more accountable to Congressional oversight. However, the reason why the fed is so independent is to attempt to isolate it from the winds of political machinations. Making it more controlled by government is a step closer to socialism, not further away (not that I think that matters, but I'm surprised you'd be for anything slightly like that).

Setting that aside, I do think public accountability for the Fed (and the rest of government) is important, so I hope the "Audit the Fed" campaign succeeds.

So your argument is that if markets are so smart, why don't they adapt to this huge entity that has a monopoly on the currency and prosper anyway? Why aren't you asking the opposite of that: If the Fed is so predictably and correctly setting interest rates, why isn't most of the market making the right long-term decisions?

I don't assume a perfect Fed, but I definitely ask why the market isn't making the right long-term decisions. My personal answer is a corporate culture driven by short-term gains. However, I think perhaps it's less politically volatile for me to say that behavioral research indicates that human beings have trouble understanding long-term schemes, especially when there's a delay of gratification required.

As the article I linked put it, there's no particular reason to think that artificially stimulated investments have a greater tendency to be malinvestments. If the market can deal with all market-related pressures as complex as they are, certainly they can discern the reaction of a single bureaucratic institution.

Booms and busts happen naturally in a market,

True.

but they have a much smaller scale and cause minimal destruction when central banks are not involved.

False.

Maybe if the market could create their own currencies, we'd have parallel competing currencies, and no one would be confined to the arbitrary rules of the unwarranted and unnecessary monopoly that is the Fed. The best money would naturally be chosen by the market itself. Ever thought of that?

Yes! The result of actually doing that in the US, and the resultant opacity of dozens of money-issuing banks, all with their own evil agendas financial motivations for manipulating their currency is what led to the implementation of a unified national currency and (later) a central bank. The argument at the time was that interest rates fluctuated too quickly and too wildly, and it had a chilling effect on the economy. Central banking has been a stabilizing influence since.

Central banks are not creations of the market, they are only possible because of govt.

True. But this is a non-sequitor, unless you're starting from the premise that because it's created by government it is therefore an inherently bad thing.

That's political ideology talking, not economics.

You'll find this with any political ideology. Euphamism is nothing new and left-wingers are as guilty as right-wingers when it comes to its use. But all this is unrelated to this book. I concur that selfishness is a "bad thing." Perhaps those who disagree should read "Atlas Shrugged" hehe.
>> ^rougy:
>> ^imstellar28:
^you say selfish as if selfish was a bad thing?
biggest problem with today's culture is that they've taken positive words and corrupted their usage, driving them into negative margins.

Selfish is a bad thing.
Selfish is the kid who can't share his birthday cake.
Selfish is the ten for me, one for you corporate culture we've allowed to hijack our country.
The biggest problem with the conservative culture is that they've taken bad words, which represent bad behavior, and given them good meanings.

>> ^imstellar28:
^you say selfish as if selfish was a bad thing?
biggest problem with today's culture is that they've taken positive words and corrupted their usage, driving them into negative margins.


Selfish is a bad thing.

Selfish is the kid who can't share his birthday cake.

Selfish is the ten for me, one for you corporate culture we've allowed to hijack our country.

The biggest problem with the conservative culture is that they've taken bad words, which represent bad behavior, and given them good meanings.

http://www.godaddy.com should make this guy their new mascot. They wouldn't even have to change their corporate culture.

Now that's some corporate culture right there...